Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

[Anonymous]

Seems to me the person who killed him was a professional. This was not a random crazy who hit the range on the weekends.

Who hired the shooter and to what end, I don't know.

[Anonymous]

And maybe those bullets were planted to stoke hate, obviously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP


https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/charlie-kirk-shot

As the WSJ article states, it is reminiscent of the NYC executioner, Luigee Mangionee in the the ammunition in the rifle used to brutally assassinate Charlie Kirk was found to be inscribed with Antiffa and pro-transg slogans, according to WSJ:

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/charlie-kirk-shot

I don't believe Patel's FBI and that shot was professional.

Need someone that is an amateur hunter to weigh in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP


https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/charlie-kirk-shot

As the WSJ article states, it is reminiscent of the NYC executioner, Luigee Mangionee in the the ammunition in the rifle used to brutally assassinate Charlie Kirk was found to be inscribed with Antiffa and pro-transg slogans, according to WSJ:

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/charlie-kirk-shot

I don't believe Patel's FBI and that shot was professional.

Ok Alex Jones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds so fake. A transgender person running away from an assassination in Utah would stick out like a giraffe at a dog park.

They didn’t say a transgender person. It was someone that supported anti fa and trans ideology.

This person was smart enough to execute an assassination of a celebrity speaker so I would assume he would be smart enough to blend in.

And I would assume he'd be smart enough not to leave behind a rifle with identifying symbols on it. Unless he wanted to throw people off his trail.

Bingo.

NOT “bingo,” grandma. The NYC gunman left behind similar shell casings he hand-inscribed with similar anti-capitalist writings on them.

And that guy went to an Ivy. Your theory is dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems to me the person who killed him was a professional. This was not a random crazy who hit the range on the weekends.

Who hired the shooter and to what end, I don't know.

They also knew exactly what the outcome would be of a hit job of a known public figure in such a graphic and public manner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds so fake. A transgender person running away from an assassination in Utah would stick out like a giraffe at a dog park.

They didn’t say a transgender person. It was someone that supported anti fa and trans ideology.

This person was smart enough to execute an assassination of a celebrity speaker so I would assume he would be smart enough to blend in.

And I would assume he'd be smart enough not to leave behind a rifle with identifying symbols on it. Unless he wanted to throw people off his trail.

Bingo.

NOT “bingo,” grandma. The NYC gunman left behind similar shell casings he hand-inscribed with similar anti-capitalist writings on them.

And that guy went to an Ivy. Your theory is dumb.

Which means that every right-wing perp will now follow the same playbook. Too easy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't gun violence; this was a targeted assassination of a major leader because of political views. If guns were outlawed, they would have poisoned him, run him over, killed him with a knife, bomb, etc

It was with a bolt action hunting rifle, which is why these calls to link this with gun control are absurd. No one is banning bolt action hunting rifles. Even the most radical anti-gun posters would think that’d be impossible to do.

But it's true that most mass shootings occur with weapons that should be banned. I blame the state of Utah and that campus specifically for being lax on security on this instance. There were fewer than 10 officers monitoring this event, and apparently... there wasn't even an ambulance, which protocol dictates should always be on hand for a large group event. This isn't an American thing. Every country that has ambulances knows you put an ambulance at a gathering. It comes automatically when you request a permit for your event.

Now of course none of these things might have saved Kirk, since he was shot directly in the jugular. That was a total fluke shot! But the odds are in favor of survival when police is more numerous and an ambulance is on site.

In short, much of what happened that day was entirely abnormal.

Someone on threads pointed out that all the LE on site, all the concealed carry, didn’t stop this. The instinct, after the shot, was to run and hide. If you listen to the stories this is what happened. It was deeply traumatic for the kids there, which is something we don’t talk about.

It was armed to the teeth yesterday, and that didn’t prevent a gun tragedy.

Thus, maybe we should look at getting rid of guns. The trauma of gun violence is worth it.

I read there were only six local LEOs there and no ambulance, which is not a lot of security for a 3,000-person event. Kirk himself had private security of about ten people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds so fake. A transgender person running away from an assassination in Utah would stick out like a giraffe at a dog park.

They didn’t say a transgender person. It was someone that supported anti fa and trans ideology.

This person was smart enough to execute an assassination of a celebrity speaker so I would assume he would be smart enough to blend in.

The only people obsessed with these two things are those that consume a steady diet of far right media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:TPUSA is bringing in $100M a year. You think that's organic? This boy was propped up with global money to brainwash American youth into being pro Zionist, pro war, pro austerity, and pro big business.

Kirk was starting to break rank with Trump. Liar Loomer stated he didn’t support the Iranian strikes in June and critiqued the President for it. Most MAGA are on the same page as someone like Ana Kasparian and are anti war much to the chagrin of Israel /USA war hawks like Loomer so no, Kirk was not necessarily pro war. He said in June “not even the romans could beat Persia”. He was not for that war anyway.

My money’s still on Iranian patsy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't gun violence; this was a targeted assassination of a major leader because of political views. If guns were outlawed, they would have poisoned him, run him over, killed him with a knife, bomb, etc

Funny because in my neighborhood nobody is talking about this assassination since nobody knows who he was and he didn't hold public office. Of course, it is sad when anybody is killed, especially a parent of young children.

Are you in an assisted living community? Funny that an entire neighborhood can be so clueless and uninformed.

It sounds like if you followed conservative influencers or religious influencers, you would know about him. If you're not in those communities, you might recognize the name, but you're not going to know who he is or look at him as any kind of leader.

I never focused on what he said or listened to his podcast but any reasonably educated person in DC knew he founded Turning Points and that was an important figure on the Right.

If you and your neighbors are clueless about who he was, it doesn't mean you are uneducated, it just means you do not have a pulse on the political landscape of the country.

People knew the name and maybe the name of turning point. Beyond that most have learned about him because of all of this current coverage. So it sounds like he was a leader in these communities but not that well known outside of them.

For people that would like to be educated, who are other "leaders" on the right or left are this level?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kirk’s speaking events are a worldwide lesson in respectful civil discourse.

He’s a stand up person, but I’m from liberal Arlington Heights where he grew up and lives.

This is a major loss for the country, political rhetoric aside.

Obviously it was a hired sniper, could be brainwashed leftist American or foreigner.

NSA, CIA and FBI investigators are all over this.

At some point a foreign entity or leftist domestic group will take credit.

+1

Maybe the shooter will turn up in Altoona. Close the loop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't gun violence; this was a targeted assassination of a major leader because of political views. If guns were outlawed, they would have poisoned him, run him over, killed him with a knife, bomb, etc

Funny because in my neighborhood nobody is talking about this assassination since nobody knows who he was and he didn't hold public office. Of course, it is sad when anybody is killed, especially a parent of young children.

Are you in an assisted living community? Funny that an entire neighborhood can be so clueless and uninformed.

It sounds like if you followed conservative influencers or religious influencers, you would know about him. If you're not in those communities, you might recognize the name, but you're not going to know who he is or look at him as any kind of leader.

I never focused on what he said or listened to his podcast but any reasonably educated person in DC knew he founded Turning Points and that was an important figure on the Right.

If you and your neighbors are clueless about who he was, it doesn't mean you are uneducated, it just means you do not have a pulse on the political landscape of the country.

I'm the PP who said nobody in my neighborhood is talking about this.

Most of my neighbors are highly educated. But no, like most people, we don't closely follow politics outside of national events and local issues. We don't claim to "have a pulse on the political landscape of the country" - we are busy working and raising our kids.

I'm also busy working and raising kids. I think it's nice you are trying to play with us here but you are obviously out of your league.

So I'm not part of your elite group that heard of this man before yesterday? Yes, I know that! That's what I'm saying!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for those who say Charlie Lirk was a great person, nothing but respectful, only trying to do good in the world…

Do you think it’s a good thing that his organization (Turning Point USA) maintained a “Professor Watch List”? That list has led to people getting death threats and needing security to do their jobs. Would you want to be on such a list? Would that make you feel safe? Do you think putting people on a public list that results in them being targeted by unstable
individuals is a Christian thing to do?

I am really trying to understand how people can sort of paper over documented harmful actions like this. And I don’t wish to hear a whataboutism type argument about something a liberal did because that’s not the question at hand. It just seems to me that people are cherry picking certain actions and words to only paint CK in a good light simply because CK was on “their team”.

Oh and to be clear I am in no way trying to suggest that CK deserved what happened. There is no justification for murder. I am specifically trying to understand the current effort to paint an image that is not the full picture of what CK did and stood for.

When people die, humans have a custom of saying nice things about them rather than listing their shortcomings.

Sure, for people you know personally. But why go out of your way to practically canonize a public figure you have never met in a social media post, when there are documented things that person did which are not Christian?

I don’t think it helps anyone to act like someone never did a single harmful thing in their life and use that to paint one side as all good and one side as all evil.

Well sure. I’m not canonizing the guy, but I understand why people who admired him are. Not sure I understand the purpose of feigning confusion about this.

The only reason to say bad things about him at this point is to justify, excuse, or diminish his murder.

That said, I certainly agree that the current trend of painting the sides (whichever side you may be on) as good/evil is inaccurate and damaging.

A worst people are using his own words against him.

I think you need to re-read this thread. People are doing far worse.

And even if what you say is true, what’s the purpose? What does it accomplish?

“I was right and he was wrong and now he’s dead. Ha ha!” Not a good look, imo.

He was running a for profit hate machine and said a bunch of horrible things over the years. He displayed complete indifference to the suffering of others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds so fake. A transgender person running away from an assassination in Utah would stick out like a giraffe at a dog park.

And transgender wasn't even his "brand" is it? Isn't the main transgender right wing guy that Matt Walsh dweeb?

He spoke to and platformed de-transitioners.

Please explain what is wrong with allowing de-transitioners to exercise their first amendment rights concerning their personal experiences?

I have no problem with it. I think it’s great. Pp was asking about CK’s “brand” around transgenderism. I was just sharing what I know.